If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Court say cannot fuck backside...377A repeal failed

Getty Images - Singapore's High Court upheld the controversial Section 377A law criminalising sex between two men, after a challenge by a gay couple (Getty Images)
Singapore's High Court ruled on Friday that a law banning intercourse between men still stands, after a gay couple filed a legal challenge calling for the law to be unconstitutional.

Justice Quentin Loh gave his verdict after reserving judgment when the case was heard on 6 March. The case was filed by couple Gary Lim and Kenneth Chee, who have been together for 15 years.

One of the plaintiff's main arguments is that the section violates Article 12 of the constitution, emphasising that all citizens are entitled to equal protection before the law. Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalises acts of "gross indecency" between two men, carrying a jail term of up to two years.

"It is not that the courts do not have any role to play in defining moral issues when such issues are at stake. However, the courts' power to intervene can only be exercised within established principles. The issue in the present case no doubt is challenging and important, but it is not one which, in my view, justifies heavy-handed judicial intervention ahead of democratic change," said Loh.

Loh said in court that the views that Parliament made in October 2007 regarding the law are "without a doubt controversial and disparate among various segments of the society."

"What is clear, however, is that Parliament has decided that Section 377A should be retained. That decision is not one which is undeniably wrong," Loh explains.

"Our courts cannot substitute their own views for that of Parliament."

Responding to the ruling, couple Lim and Chee said in a statement, "We are disappointed that the High Court ruled against us and upheld Section 377A. Having been together for 15 years, it is disheartening that we are criminals in the eyes of the law because of a segment of society that will not live and let live, but insist on pushing their version of religion and morality on us."

"We believe that most Singaporeans do not believe that gay people should be jailed for something they can’t change, and we believe that an equal and fair Singapore is worth striving for. We have received many supportive messages since this began, and we ask that people continue to come together as we work towards a Singapore that everyone can truly call home," the couple added.

Lawyer Choo Zheng Xi, who represented the couple in this case, said, "Litigators are trained to be prepared for victory or defeat. While we've lost this battle and disappointment is a natural cause of that, we will take our client's instructions on whether to proceed with an appeal."

A boyfriend should make his girlfriend's pussy wet, not her eyes. A girlfriend should make her boyfriend's cock hard, not his life .

Re: Court say cannot fuck backside...377A repeal failed

Dumb fuck retard keeps saying they are criminalized for poking backside yet they opening challenge the law and admitted they poke backside and no one is arresting them. Slapping their own mouth. Poking too much backside must have fried their brains

Re: Court say cannot fuck backside...377A repeal failed

Originally Posted by BuiKia

Getty Images - Singapore's High Court upheld the controversial Section 377A law criminalising sex between two men, after a challenge by a gay couple (Getty Images)
Singapore's High Court ruled on Friday that a law banning intercourse between men still stands, after a gay couple filed a legal challenge calling for the law to be unconstitutional.

One of the plaintiff's main arguments is that the section violates Article 12 of the constitution, emphasizing that all citizens are entitled to equal protection before the law. Section 377A of the Penal Code criminalises acts of "gross indecency" between two men, carrying a jail term of up to two years.

There is really nothing contradicting about 377A and article12.

When it illegal means it illegal. There is no such thing as demanding equal right for people who broke the law.

Now it apparent that these 2 gays had broken the law under section 377A. It time for poodle to prosecute them and send a strong message to the gay community that their action is illegal. Having a law without enforcement will only create the illusion to the gays that their action is legitimate.

Re: Court say cannot fuck backside...377A repeal failed

What's wrong with gays? They want to start having sex out in the open? If they are doing it in the bedrooms like the rest of us, why the need to repeal?

Originally Posted by BuiKia

This is only the first step, they ultimately wants to be able to get married to each other.

I agree with you two. But we need to be careful with these very sensitive creatures they can be spiteful and merciless. For me I agree with someone who suggested beore to put all of them in an isolated island and let them fuck each other for all we care and at the same time get rid of all of them once and for all from this planet, we don't have to lynch them at the stake.

I thank the Lord Gay Marriages is not going to happen in SGP!!

SINGAPORE - The High Court has dismissed one of two legal challenges that Section 377A (S377A) of the Penal Code - which criminalises sex between gays - is unconstitutional, ruling that its objective of criminalising a conduct that “is not acceptable in ...

Re: Court say cannot fuck backside...377A repeal failed

Oral sex between heterosexual couples is legal,,change oreadi right?. Its 2 men not allowed to bang each others bum,,,that is illegal,,,anyway how can sex between heterosexual be unnatural? homosexual sex is unnatural..

Originally Posted by halsey02

It is unnatural sex, the law is against is, so is 'licking the ice cream cone with cream' & licking the 'donout'..wonder why they didn't charge that NG on that??